4 ms·

> I'd love to see comments that don't consider the amount of libraries but the languages themselves since eventually more open source will exist in Rust. That

> I'd love to see comments that don't consider the amount of libraries but the languages themselves since eventually more open source will exist in Rust. That doesn't seem like the kind of comment to start a meaningful conversation. I must ask, what data do you have behind that statement. I think both languages offer their own set of pros and cons. For me, Go has been my go-to because of the maturity of the language. And, it has been implemented in systems that run at a very large scale by people within Google/YouTube as well as CloudFlare. Would I consider it? Honestly, maybe one day. But that depends on how the language, and related things, mature over the next few years. And I think it's after the libraries have filled-in, and there is experience running systems built with it at scale. Go is allowing me to solve the problems I have right now with some well-built packages. Is it perfect for everything, no. But it does well in a lot of areas.

davidpelaez 11y ago
It's not my intention to close the conversation but to try to make it richer by not focusing on the historical advantage that Go has over Rust. You are correct in that it's possible that not much more open source will exist in rust since it could simply fail to acquire any massive adoption. I do think there will be space for both and I would prefer to consider them as raw tools, hence the language themselves, and take the risk of having a community in the future sharing libraries for common things. It's a risk but not a crazy one I'd say and probably helpful for the analysis. Building on your reply, I'd say prove of adoption is one downside for choosing Rust. This however ignores the merit of Rust as a language which hints me into what I have begun to see more often: that it's the newness and relative absence of production use cases that don't seem to validate it viability, not some inherent complexity or downside to the language itself.

davidpelaez 11y ago

It's not my intention to close the conversation but to try to make it richer by not focusing on the historical advantage that Go has over Rust. You are correct in that it's possible that not much more open source will exist in rust since it could simply fail to acquire any massive adoption. I do think there will be space for both and I would prefer to consider them as raw tools, hence the language themselves, and take the risk of having a community in the future sharing libraries for common things. It's a risk but not a crazy one I'd say and probably helpful for the analysis. Building on your reply, I'd say prove of adoption is one downside for choosing Rust. This however ignores the merit of Rust as a language which hints me into what I have begun to see more often: that it's the newness and relative absence of production use cases that don't seem to validate it viability, not some inherent complexity or downside to the language itself.